Dhevirianita (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an Indonesian citizen who applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500. The applicant had provided a letter of offer of employment dated 27 January 2017, purportedly from PT Metropolitan Land Tbk, stating she had been offered a position as a Business Analyst Manager upon completion of her studies. The Department of Home Affairs conducted checks and concluded that the applicant had provided false and misleading information, as the purported employer denied having any record of the applicant being offered a position and indicated they did not typically offer employment two years in advance. The delegate affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, as required for the grant of the visa. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had provided a bogus document or information that was false or misleading in a material particular in relation to her visa application, and if there were any compelling or compassionate circumstances that would justify a waiver of this requirement. The Tribunal also considered the validity of a certificate issued under s. 375A of the Migration Act 1958, which protected confidential information provided by an informant.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to satisfy PIC 4020(1). Despite the applicant's submissions that the employment letter was genuine and that no one had contacted the company's HR department, the delegate's findings, which placed greater weight on the Department's investigations, were not adequately addressed. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's purported employer had confirmed no such position was available and that the company did not usually offer employment so far in advance. Furthermore, there was no record of the applicant being offered a position. The Tribunal found the s. 375A certificate to be valid and, after explaining its gist to the applicant without revealing the source, noted that the applicant made no submissions regarding its content. The Tribunal also considered the difficulties the applicant faced in obtaining further corroborating evidence due to the passage of time, the death of the general manager of the company, and the resignation of the signatory of the employment letter. However, these circumstances did not negate the initial provision of false or misleading information.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4020 and that there were no compelling or compassionate circumstances to justify a waiver.